Is Locking Up Pregnant Women the New Cure for State Financial Woes and Mental Health Problems?

In December of 2010, Bei Bei Shuai, a 34-year-old pregnant woman living in Indiana, attempted to end her own life. She did so in one of the slowest and most painful ways possible: she consumed rat poison. With help from friends who intervened, however, she made it to a hospital and survived. The premature newborn she delivered by undergoing cesarean surgery did not. An Indiana prosecutor’s response has been to charge her with the crimes of murder (defined to include viable fetuses) and feticide (defined to include ending a human pregnancy at any stage). She has been arrested, denied bail, and will, unless bail is granted, be imprisoned for as long as her case proceeds through the court system.

National Advocates for Pregnant Women (NAPW), through Indiana-based counsel Kathrine Jack, is working with Indiana defense attorney Linda Pence to secure Ms. Shuai’s freedom and to defend the basic idea that when the person suffering from mental illness, severe depression, or any other health problem happens to be a pregnant woman, she does not lose her right to be treated like other human beings experiencing the same problems.

Pregnant women are not immune from the mental illness or severe depression that leads some people to attempt to end their lives. Indiana, like virtually every other state in the country, addresses suicide and attempted suicide as a public health issue, not a crime. Prosecutors simply may not decide that a suicide attempt is a public health issue for everyone except pregnant women. Moreover, there is wide consensus that subjecting pregnant women to special criminal penalties does not work. Rather, it undermines legitimate interests in maternal, fetal, and child health by stigmatizing pregnant women and by making them vulnerable to punishment if they seek help of any kind.

If this prosecution is allowed to go forward, the law will not just apply to one desperate pregnant woman who attempted suicide by swallowing rat poison – it will create legal precedent that makes every woman criminally liable for the outcome of her pregnancy. This precedent would mean that women who undergo significant risks to their lives and health by bringing forth life, sometimes undergoing major surgery to do so, may then be arrested as criminals if they are unable to guarantee the birth of a live and healthy baby. In addition, if Ms. Shuai’s prosecution is upheld, it leaves no doubt that women who intentionally end their pregnancies will go to jail as murderers if Roe is ever overturned.

This story and the heart-rending video that accompanies it, Attorney Rips Prosecutor In Infant Rat Poison Death, Pence: Prosecuting Pregnant Women ‘Bad For Babies’, provides a glimpse of the jailhouse dehumanization that awaits pregnant women who become the targets of state feticide and murder laws that have defined eggs, embryos, and fetuses as legally separate from pregnant women.

Women in Alabama may also look forward to such dehumanization. There, legislators suggest that locking up pregnant women, depriving them of treatment and separating them from their families is the right way to address drug dependency problems.

Alabama House Bill 8 would amend the state’s chemical endangerment law, which was originally designed to deter people who run methamphetamine laboratories from bringing children to such dangerous locations.  HB 8 would define the word “child” to include “an unborn child in utero at any stage of development,” and make the law applicable to a pregnant woman who uses any amount of a “controlled substance,” prescribed or otherwise, at any point in her pregnancy, and whether or not she knew she was pregnant at the time. 

In other words, the bill would allow prosecutors to treat a pregnant woman as if she herself is an illegal drug lab.

Alabama, like most states, makes it a crime to possess illegal drugs, not to use or be addicted to them. This is consistent with state and federal efforts to encourage people to seek help for drug problems. HB 8, however, creates a gender-based law that singles out pregnant women for criminal punishment.

To be clear, HB 8 will not increase pregnant women’s access to treatment or care. Instead, it will increase the number of pregnant women and new mothers in Alabama’s notoriously horrific jails and prisons.  And wait there is more! According to the fiscal impact statement that accompanies the bill: This bill could increase receipts to the State General Fund from fines, increase receipts to the State General Fund, county general funds and other funds to which court costs are deposited. In other words, because pregnant women arrested under this law will be required to pay fines, court fees and other costs, Alabama claims locking up pregnant women and new mothers will be a money-making proposition for the state.

The prosecution in Indiana and the proposed law in Alabama both fly in the face of medical and public health recommendations regarding the most effective and appropriate ways to respond to suicide attempts and drug-dependency disorders.  That these states believe there is value, financial or otherwise, in locking up pregnant women with these problems is stark evidence of how little, in fact, they value pregnant women and the children they purport to be protecting.

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

For more information or to schedule an interview with contact

  • elburto

    My heart breaks for my sisters in the US. I cannot comprehend how you all have ended up in this position. I seem to spend more time worrying about americans than women in developing countries, because at least there are charity organisations to help women there. Who’ll help the women of the US?

  • parterita

    Thanks, sensationalist news team for having a lead-in to that story that implies that she took rat poison ‘to kill her baby’. No, it’s reported several times within your piece that she took rat poison in an effort to end her own life (thereby ending the baby’s life too, yes, I know, but get your facts straight).

    I just can’t stand sensationalist news hooks that are just 100% terrible reporting. What a sad story.

  • leftcoaster

    Parterita, reporters are always careful to attribute their statements to whoever supplied them. In this case they would have been told by police and/or prosecution sources that her intent was to abort, because that’s their belief. Typically a defense attorney is not likely to speak on the record at this point. So while it seems “sensationalistic” to you, it’s actually a careful process of reporting on the charges and not making blanket statements leading to guilt or innocence. A few don’t succeed in making that distinction, but for the most part they do.


    You as a reader have to be careful to understand what attribution is. Being charged with something is one thing, but if the news story reads, “Prosecutors say (so-and-so) was attempting to abort her pregnancy,” that’s the facts. Prosecutors say it. It is not the responsibility of the reporter to soft-pedal or interpret facts.

  • crowepps

    It’s very clear from the facts of this case, widely covered in the press, that after her boyfriend dumped her, this woman attempted to commit suicide and survived only because a friend discovered her and took her to the hospital.  The prosecutor may have an OPINION about her motivations based on his personal religious view that the only ‘person’ here worth considering is the fetus, but the fact that he states something doesn’t mean it is true.  He will have an opportunity to convince a jury that his opinion is true.  Her attorney will have an opportunity to convince the jury it is not.  In the meantime, it would be interesting to know why the boyfriend hasn’t been arrested and charged with cruelty or conspiracy.  After all, his callous behavior was the trigger for the whole disaster.

  • Pingback: Is Locking Up Pregnant Women the New Cure for State Financial … | ChildBirth 101()